World Handicap System (WHS)

[rulefan]

What surprises me about the new system is the lack of significant difference to the course handicap between tees and between different clubs. I have played regularly in areas that have used the slope system for a few years, inc in Mauritius last year. In Mauritius there was a 3 stroke difference between the yellow and the white tee. All the UK clubs I have looked at at the moment, that I am familiar with, have at most a 1 stroke difference for me between the white and yellow tees and many of them are the same. Similarly, when I look at my course handicap for courses I consider to be considerably easier or harder then my home course I see at most a change of 1. In fact on one course I play regularly which is much shorter and easier than my home course I get the same course handicap as my home course and it stays the same off of the whites, yellows and reds!! There seems to be very little differentiation between our courses and tee positions in England. Is this because for GB&I we calculate ‘Without Course Rating Minus Par’?

The final sentence has nothing to do with Course and Slope Rating. Par is not an element in the worldwide Course Rating System.

IMO it is the fact that the majority of courses in the UK are relatively old. When they were built, shot lengths were nowhere near today's distances. So the distance between the two tees (white and yellow were probably the only ones used at that time) was in today's terms pretty short. Now these courses have very little land to extend tee lengths, whereas new courses in new golfing countries have acres to use. Many of these will have 3 or 4 rated men's tees.
A large proportion of the course rating is related to length. So two sets of tees with 200 yards difference will only be about 1.5 in the CR.

Further, (CR - Par) is not used in the Handicap Index calculation.
In practical terms, par is really only used to determine stableford points and by the pro the indicate relative positions during the round.
Of course. par tells you nothing about relative or actual difficulty.

 

[rulefan]

Sorry I think we're at cross purposes there.

My question is relating to the allowance for each individual.

For example, handicaps 1, 2, 3 and 4.
25% of 1 = 0.25
20% of 2 = 0.4
15% of 3 = 0.45
10% of 4 = 0.4

What is the team allowance?

The sum of the individual rounded figures. In this case 0

 

[rulefan]

The answer I'm looking for from post 2307 is whether the allowances from the Course Handicaps of the guys off 1 and 3 stay as 0.25 and 0.45 or whether they are rounded to one decimal place to be 0.3 and 0.5.

This would be the difference in the team handicap being either 1.5 or 1.6.

No. When rounding is required in the WHS it is always to the nearest whole number. The second decimal is irrelevant.
So 0.25 is 0
and 6.25 is 6
and 3.61 is 4

The second decimal is irrelevant.

 

[jim8flog]

View attachment 34078
Sorry you're missing the point here.
Each player's percentage of their CH is added together to make a team "Total Playing Handicap".
The example given in the WHS document only shows percentages that are one decimal point, 25% of 1 is 0.25 and it's not clarified whether this is the player's "Stroke Contribution" or whether it's rounded to 0.3.

Poor choice of numbers in the example

The question has to be does -0.5 round to -1 or zero

If -0.5 rounds to zero in the numbers they use it does not matter whether you round before or after it is still 10 . If it rounds to minus 1 then it is the total that is rounded.

 

[nickjdavis]

I understand what you are saying Tram.

The guidance doesn't give a clear example that helps clarify the answer to your question.

I've just set up a scramble in our club software so see how the software currently treats the numbers, and I can confirm that it uses the full decimal calculation (e.g. 2.25) for each player before adding up and then rounding the result to get the team handicap.

(Now, whether this is what is intended by the rules is another matter....but its how things work in practice with our competition software)

 

[nickjdavis]

Here's a screenshot from our system....showing the calculation...

As you can clearly see, if the individual player contributions were rounded to a whole number before adding up, the team handicap would be 12.


.

 

[NearHull]

I read that the Brexit deal was held up for a day when it was discovered that the fishing % allocation of 25% was misinterpreted as 22%.
if only they had thought to bring in WHS forummers it could have been resolved in hours - admittedly it would have involved pages of of similar threads and repetition of facts - UK golfers have become the ‘go to’ % experts.

(perhaps I should’ve posted this in the Jokes thread - not meaning to upset any contributor.)

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Well it is the season of goodwill so Merry Christmas.

Be interesting to see whether WHS or the new trade deal is a bigger success by the end of 2021!

 

[nickjdavis]

Well it is the season of goodwill so Merry Christmas.

Be interesting to see whether WHS or the new trade deal is a bigger success by the end of 2021!

Believe it or not...my money is on the WHS!!!!

 

[harpo_72]

They still have not adjusted the calculation for the incorrect tees ... !

 

[rulefan]

They still have not adjusted the calculation for the incorrect tees ... !

IMO they will resort to doing it on a case by case basis.

 

[harpo_72]

IMO they will resort to doing it on a case by case basis.

Yes or they did a quick pencil Calc and thought too small for the effort ... not to worry works in my favour

 

[Yorkshire Hacker]

I was discussing WHS with my non golfing brother last night. His ex was a golfer, so he does know a bit.
When I got to the 113 measure being the standard, he looked at me a little puzzled.
So, in order to avoid scrolling through 117 pages on this thread, can someone (Rulefan?) explain why WHS use 113 as the standard measure of a golf course's difficulty?
I am slowly getting my head round the new system, can't say I rate it, it seems far too unnecessarily complicated to me.

 

[jim8flog]

I was discussing WHS with my non golfing brother last night. His ex was a golfer, so he does know a bit.
When I got to the 113 measure being the standard, he looked at me a little puzzled.
So, in order to avoid scrolling through 117 pages on this thread, can someone (Rulefan?) explain why WHS use 113 as the standard measure of a golf course's difficulty?
I am slowly getting my head round the new system, can't say I rate it, it seems far too unnecessarily complicated to me.

It is a figure plucked out of the air simply because it has to be a number that can be the same, more or less than that number. They probably got some one with some maths knowledge to run a few trials to find the best number. It is also high enough to have a miniscule effect unless there is quite a deviation from that number.

 

[rulefan]

I was discussing WHS with my non golfing brother last night. His ex was a golfer, so he does know a bit.
When I got to the 113 measure being the standard, he looked at me a little puzzled.
So, in order to avoid scrolling through 117 pages on this thread, can someone (Rulefan?) explain why WHS use 113 as the standard measure of a golf course's difficulty?
I am slowly getting my head round the new system, can't say I rate it, it seems far too unnecessarily complicated to me.

Jim8flog is right. Knuth originally called it 'standard difficulty'. Although attributed to Knuth there is no evidence that I have seen that he ever used the word average. More recently the average slope is said to be about 118.

 

[wjemather]

Jim8flog is right. Knuth originally called it 'standard difficulty'. Although attributed to Knuth there is no evidence that I have seen that he ever used the word average. More recently the average slope is said to be about 118.

I read somewhere that CONGU (or maybe England Golf) reckoned the average slope to be 125 in GB&I (or England).

The standard or neutral slope of 113 is the point at which a set of tees is equally difficult for both the scratch and bogey golfer to play to handicap.

Why 113? Apparently it relates to the gradient of a line graph plotting scores versus handicap on a standard difficulty course (1.13).

 

[rulefan]

I read somewhere that CONGU (or maybe England Golf) reckoned the average slope to be 125 in GB&I (or England).

The standard or neutral slope of 113 is the point at which a set of tees is equally difficult for both the scratch and bogey golfer to play to handicap.

Why 113? Apparently it relates to the gradient of a line graph plotting scores versus handicap on a standard difficulty course (1.13).

When the EG transition took place the software was unable to identify a number of courses/tees from the CDH files (either the courses/tees hadn't been set up properly inthe WHS portal by the clubs or had not yet been rated). The software therefore allocated a nominal value of 125 for the slope and 72 for the course rating. These were approximate averages determined from the figures derived from the ratings already done for the men's courses throughout England in the last couple of years.
All other courses in GB&! had already been rated for many years.
I believe the 118 was an unofficial figure estimated from USGA ratings shortly after the implementation of slope.

Yes, the terms used to describe the 113 are 'standard' or 'neutral'.

However, I have never been able to reconcile the following statement
'The USGA calculates Slope Rating with the following formula: bogey course rating minus Course Rating, with the result multiplied by 5.381 for men or 4.24 for women.
with
'113 is the point at which a set of tees is equally difficult for both the scratch and bogey golfer to play to handicap'.

 

[rulefan]

'113 is the point at which a set of tees is equally difficult for both the scratch and bogey golfer to play to handicap'.

I now have the correct answer.

When Knuth introduced the system in 1982, the theoretical average Slope Rating was 113 because USGA data showed that scores go up on average 1.13 strokes per handicap stroke.

Dean Knuth invented today's USGA Course Rating and Slope system.

 

[Yorkshire Hacker]

Thank you Rulefan, (and others), that's extremely informative. However, if that was introduced in 1982, (40 years ago virtually), do you think that the difference between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer in 1982 is the same difference exponentially in 2021? i.e. is there any research, or any proof that the gap has widened or narrowed?

 

[rulefan]

Thank you Rulefan, (and others), that's extremely informative. However, if that was introduced in 1982, (40 years ago virtually), do you think that the difference between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer in 1982 is the same difference exponentially in 2021? i.e. is there any research, or any proof that the gap has widened or narrowed?

If you dig further into this it is suggested that the actual number makes very little difference to the outcome.